Wander

Say I see a book that sells well. It’s in a language I don’t understand, but I use a thesaurus to replace lots of words with synonyms. I switch some sentences around, and maybe even mix pages from similar books into it. I then go and sell this book (still not knowing what the book actually says).

I would call that copyright infringement. The original book didn’t inspire me, it didn’t teach me anything, and I didn’t add any of my own knowledge into it. I didn’t produce any original work, I simply mixed a bunch of things I don’t understand.

That’s what these language models do.

To me fediverse just means different communties being able to talk to each other.

It seems like a lot of people use fediverse as a generic term for any decentralized system.

I’m not sure. And I’m not sure there’s legal precedant for that either.
That’s why I dont have a problem with any of these lawsuits, it gives us clarity on the legal aspects, whichever way it goes.

Not a lawyer, but you can argue that if the language model is trained using gpl licensed data, then the language model has to be published under gpl as well.

If you release code under gpl, and I modify it, I’m required to release those modifications publicly under gpl as well.

It’s not a fair trade if there is no consent.

A human can, within limits.

But software isn’t human. AI models aren’t “learning”, “practicing” and “developing their own skills”.

Human-made software is copying other peoples work, transforming it, letting a bunch of calculations loose on it, and mass producing similar works as the input.

Using an artists work to train an ai model and making similar stuff with it to make money off of it, is like copying someones work, putting on a mug, and selling that.
It’s not using it as inspiration to improve your own skills.